Level 35 Re-Re

Is the item you think is skirting by Entire Second Grade Girl’s Soccer Team?

Sorry, yes. Just damn tired over here.

The fact that you can see their faces and identify them, plus the fact that the item description refers to kidnapping, I’m not entirely okay with that. One of the other images, the newspaper article, you couldn’t make out any distinctive features on the children. That would have been much better, imo.

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Theargent Thid Posted:

Sorry, yes. Just damn tired over here.

The fact that you can see their faces and identify them, plus the fact that the item description refers to kidnapping, I’m not entirely okay with that. One of the other images, the newspaper article, you couldn’t make out any distinctive features on the children. That would have been much better, imo.

See, I thought it was tasteless and crude, but I hadn’t really thought of it as skirting CP any more than the idea text automatically would. I can see how the combo might feed into the fantasies of a paedophile, but any number of innocent images can do that too, and I’m a little concerned that we, as a society, are starting to to automatically sexualize images of children out of fear that someone, somewhere, is going to sexualize them.

There’s nothing you can post to the net that some perv, somewhere, won’t fap to, and it’s a little disturbing to think that normal people should be required to think like a pervert when judging imagery. Paedophiles are disgusting, and I don’t want to get inside their heads.

Likewise, although the abstract sexualization of minors is damaging, CP laws were originally enacted to protect children from sexual abuse, not to prevent pedophiles from finding any pictures they can conceivably jerk off to. The idea was to defend children from the damage caused by being forced into sex and sexual activity, but the net just keeps widening.

Yeah, it’s skeevy to think that your kid’s picture is turning on some dirty old man, but if a proud poppa really wants to YouTube a cute video of his kid singing and splashing in the bath tab, I’d like to think the standards of a healthy mind should take precedence over those of a paedophile.

Yet, I know a proud pop who took a 15-second cellphone vid of his kid splashing in the tub, posted to YouTube as he had so many other vids of his kid, and found it taken down in minutes as a ToS violation, while he was left wondering if he’d been flagged as a paedo. That’s not healthy – it’s letting the life of normal people be dictated by disturbed people’s skewed perceptions.

It’s late, and I’m probably getting off-topic here. Feel free to mod-edit this down to the first paragraph if necessary.

Level 47 Camwhore

“Loose as a Goddamn Goose”

Samildanach Posted:

See, I thought it was tasteless and crude, but I hadn’t really thought of it as skirting CP any more than the idea text automatically would. I can see how the combo might feed into the fantasies of a paedophile, but any number of innocent images can do that too, and I’m a little concerned that we, as a society, are starting to to automatically sexualize images of children out of fear that someone, somewhere, is going to sexualize them.

There’s nothing you can post to the net that some perv, somewhere, won’t fap to, and it’s a little disturbing to think that normal people should be required to think like a pervert when judging imagery. Paedophiles are disgusting, and I don’t want to get inside their heads.

Likewise, although the abstract sexualization of minors is damaging, CP laws were originally enacted to protect children from sexual abuse, not to prevent pedophiles from finding any pictures they can conceivably jerk off to. The idea was to defend children from the damage caused by being forced into sex and sexual activity, but the net just keeps widening.

Yeah, it’s skeevy to think that your kid’s picture is turning on some dirty old man, but if a proud poppa really wants to YouTube a cute video of his kid singing and splashing in the bath tab, I’d like to think the standards of a healthy mind should take precedence over those of a paedophile.

Yet, I know a proud pop who took a 15-second cellphone vid of his kid splashing in the tub, posted to YouTube as he had so many other vids of his kid, and found it taken down in minutes as a ToS violation, while he was left wondering if he’d been flagged as a paedo. That’s not healthy – it’s letting the life of normal people be dictated by disturbed people’s skewed perceptions.

It’s late, and I’m probably getting off-topic here. Feel free to mod-edit this down to the first paragraph if necessary.

This entire post may be the most thought out and well written thing in this thread.

Level 35 Hacker

Verbose and long-winded as always

Samildanach Posted:

See, I thought it was tasteless and crude, but I hadn’t really thought of it as skirting CP any more than the idea text automatically would. I can see how the combo might feed into the fantasies of a paedophile, but any number of innocent images can do that too, and I’m a little concerned that we, as a society, are starting to to automatically sexualize images of children out of fear that someone, somewhere, is going to sexualize them.

There’s nothing you can post to the net that some perv, somewhere, won’t fap to, and it’s a little disturbing to think that normal people should be required to think like a pervert when judging imagery. Paedophiles are disgusting, and I don’t want to get inside their heads.

Likewise, although the abstract sexualization of minors is damaging, CP laws were originally enacted to protect children from sexual abuse, not to prevent pedophiles from finding any pictures they can conceivably jerk off to. The idea was to defend children from the damage caused by being forced into sex and sexual activity, but the net just keeps widening.

Yeah, it’s skeevy to think that your kid’s picture is turning on some dirty old man, but if a proud poppa really wants to YouTube a cute video of his kid singing and splashing in the bath tab, I’d like to think the standards of a healthy mind should take precedence over those of a paedophile.

Yet, I know a proud pop who took a 15-second cellphone vid of his kid splashing in the tub, posted to YouTube as he had so many other vids of his kid, and found it taken down in minutes as a ToS violation, while he was left wondering if he’d been flagged as a paedo. That’s not healthy – it’s letting the life of normal people be dictated by disturbed people’s skewed perceptions.

It’s late, and I’m probably getting off-topic here. Feel free to mod-edit this down to the first paragraph if necessary.

[Full of SbumSS]

Level 35 Troll

I grant you an bumhole x

I’m betting a ton of INCIT pics are copyrighted. If copyright agencies ever come knocking here like they are on YouTube, FW is toast.

If they ever got taken to court over it they can probably claim fair use, not entirely sure it would be too effective but it’s a decent chance (we use it to protect ED all the time): http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

But anyway Wylins pic actually made me uncomfortable a tad and I don’t want to see that again, maybe it’s because I don’t have kids or see them naked on a regular basis, I think the majority of people don’t either.

And Hobo’s was an inoffensive joke taken too seriously and if they got taken to court for that it would get thrown out so fast.

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Johnny Mac Posted:

If they ever got taken to court over it they can probably claim fair use, not entirely sure it would be too effective but it’s a decent chance (we use it to protect ED all the time): http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

But anyway Wylins pic actually made me uncomfortable a tad and I don’t want to see that again, maybe it’s because I don’t have kids or see them naked on a regular basis, I think the majority of people don’t either.

And Hobo’s was an inoffensive joke taken too seriously and if they got taken to court for that it would get thrown out so fast.

Yeh, honestly, I agree.

Also, I’m a Music Business, and Copyright Law is basically half my clbumes right now (Between Intellectual Property and Business Law.)

I actually have an exam on Copyright defenses and exemptions tomorrow morning; while you’re correct that fair use is a defense they can claim, in ED’s case, as an Encyclopedia of sorts, it gets around it by being a “teaching” exemption, I would imagine.

ForumWarz is in every aspect a commercial business, and using these images for commercial gain would almost bumuredly not fall within fair use.

Level 69 Troll

Causing Jealousy On The Internet On A Daily Basis.

Wow, I’m glad a mod took that image I posted and turned it into a link. I never thought you pervs would think of it sexually. I got it from a “funny things kids to” collection of images on an image board. It was with images of kids doing things like pulling stuff out of the fridge and getting it all over the floor, or smearing paint all over the television. I would be plenty happy to remove the link if you think people are gonna jerk off to a funny picture of a kid.

Edit: oh and I don’t think the other image should have resulted in a ban either, unless he was trolling in non-RP.

[Full of SbumSS]

Level 25 Re-Re

Head of the Ministry of Man bumes

Wylin Posted:

Wow, I’m glad a mod took that image I posted and turned it into a link. I never thought you pervs would think of it sexually. I got it from a “funny things kids to” collection of images on an image board. It was with images of kids doing things like pulling stuff out of the fridge and getting it all over the floor, or smearing paint all over the television. I would be plenty happy to remove the link if you think people are gonna jerk off to a funny picture of a kid.

Edit: oh and I don’t think the other image should have resulted in a ban either, unless he was trolling in non-RP.

Level 39 Camwhore

If I was a gila monster you could be my devil ray.

Wylin Posted:

Wow, I’m glad…

Don’t worry Wylin. This whole thing is not at all about cp, it is about selective modding and inconsistent rules. The cp/loli thing is a nightmare sort or area for CZ – we live in a time when people win lawsuits because the hot coffee they ordered was served…hot. Your post just happened to be convenient as far as I can see. The proverbial elephant in the room, the thing that no one is coming right out and saying is that the stick figure thing was ridiculous. Everyone thought it was ridiculous. No one in their right mind looks at it and thinks loli/cp (nothing against AH’s abilities as an artist, but come on lets be serious.) AH drew and posted it as a **** you, CZ answered with a return **** you.

Personally, I think it would be better sometimes to just say “Listen, you’ve been a douche, we are going to take a break. Here is your time out, see you in a week.” That just makes more sense to me than coming up with some semi-legitimized reason for a ban. (Of course I do think that should be a CZ only thing, not a mod thing.)